Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill creates federal penalties for intimidating voters or election workers during voting.
The problem
Election workers and voters may face threats or intimidation during voting processes. Federal protections may be needed to ensure safe election participation.
The proposal
Establishes federal criminal penalties for intimidating, threatening, or coercing voters and election officials. Provides legal tools to prosecute election-related intimidation acts.
The impact
Voters, election workers, and election officials gain legal protection. Federal law enforcement gains authority to investigate intimidation cases.
Election workers have reported increasing threats and harassment. Federal penalties could deter intimidation and create safer working conditions for poll workers and election staff.
Voters intimidated at polling places may avoid voting. Clear federal penalties could reduce voter intimidation and help ensure all citizens can vote without fear.
Establishes clear federal authority over election intimidation cases. Reduces confusion about whether states or federal government handles these crimes.
Federal law creates uniform penalties across all states. Prevents different states from having different protection levels for voters and election workers.
Elections traditionally managed by states under Constitution. Critics may argue federal law overreaches into state election control and violates state authority.
Bill title alone doesn't define what counts as intimidation. Overly broad definitions could criminalize legitimate political speech or observation activities.
Federal enforcement requires coordination with states and local authorities. Determining jurisdiction between federal and state prosecutions could create conflicts.
Without specific penalty amounts and definitions, bill's real impact is unclear. Actual deterrent effect depends on how courts interpret undefined terms.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
No donor data found for current cycle
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.